Focal Clear Review (headphone)

[highpurityusbcable]

All day long audiofails talk about only trusting your own ears and patting each other's heads for buying gear but then blow up like an overheated tube if they see something that doesn't agree with their impeccable taste. Good thing there are ways to ease this mental torture by passive agressive posts. I can only imagine what kind of messages Amir receives in a private box.

 

[rmsanger]

I can understand where he's coming from. So many audio products just don't measure that well and I own a few of them- bought some of them before I knew any better, and a few even after reading reviews and measurements here on ASR. It's rough to see some of your favorite gear trashed here. Makes one question one's ability to listen/ hear critically.

I actually think about it inversely where I trust my ears and my judgement to dictate what I enjoy listening to... So if the measurements don't align then I de-emphasize the value of measurements in evaluating gear selection. I'm a data guy and abhor the prose/poetry that hifi will try to trickle into your ears. But you just have to trust your own tastes/preferences. I guaran-goddamn-tee my Maggies and Clears would sound great to 75%+ to the posters on this forum if they hear my setup.

 

[Rottmannash]

I actually think about it inversely where I trust my ears and my judgement to dictate what I enjoy listening to... So if the measurements don't align then I de-emphasize the value of measurements in evaluating gear selection. I'm a data guy and abhor the prose/poetry that hifi will try to trickle into your ears. But you just have to trust your own tastes/preferences. I guaran-goddamn-tee my Maggies and Clears would sound great to 75%+ to the posters on this forum if they hear my setup.

Agree.

 

[amirm]

lol ASR hates every single one of my beloved hifi gear... I've listened to dozens of speakers and multiple dozens of headphones...

I didn't hate the Clears. I just can't recommend them given the clipping flaw I observed. That is orthogonal to its sonic performance when it worked.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Are noticeable improvements made from EQ'ing of course but boy I think you guys get it wrong more than you get it right.

I wouldn't go that far.
Any reviewer that is serious about his work, has to assess the extreme ends of use cases and see whether a product can cope with it.

Yes, the Clear is limited in terms of high volume + bass heavy stuff, while I personally find it a bit too much to withhold a recommendation solely on that one aspect, it is important to tell people about it.

I hope Focal one day makes a 2.0 version w/o that limit but I doubt it.
Unless they go the compression route, any driver will sooner or later hit Xmax. That's just physics, especially if you insist on dumping and amplifying inaudible frequencies onto the poor driver (what's the point of 15Hz in headphones, seriously?).

 

[Daaadou]

I didn't hate the Clears. I just can't recommend them given the clipping flaw I observed. That is orthogonal to its sonic performance when it worked.

Considering the quality of the tests you've performed, I completely agree with you. These are HPs with a real flaw. Especially for this kind of retail price as you said.
Some will consider it is not troublesome, some other don't but facts and figures are available for anyone.

On another topic considering these HPs.
What would be your recommendation for a portable headphone amp? Sources would be smartphones and laptops.
I've seen in your test a couple of things but nothing convincing at this point. The Clears seem to require very low impedance HP amp as it was shown in the review.
If you have an idea of what could fit.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Well, since this is a forum that likes numbers and since I am a curious bugger that can't leave things alone, I did some experiment.

Senpai @amirm said that he was reluctant to torture the clear in order to find the values at which his loaned exemplar hit Xmax, and I can completely understand that. Being weary of damage myself, I thought about a way to make it happen anyway and this is the method I have come up with:

While listening, I slowly up the volume until the driver starts to exceed the designed travel and then I turned the volume back one notch (2% on the Windows 10 main volume). I measured that 10% corresponds to roughly 3dB.

I don't own a fancy headphone measurement rig, like Amir but I used the "UMIK through a CD-contraption" trick, @solderdude gave me a while back. So take these numbers with a hand barrow of NaCl. At least I think they should be usable ballpark figures.

No EQ of mine of any sort was applied to the actual music.

First test was the "Un espejo en el cielo" piece Amir linked earlier. The bass has it's peak at ~30Hz.
This is what I could get out of my Clear:

If I interpret the values correctly: 110dB (Z) weighted was the peak.

Next I used a 30Hz sine wave, created in Audacity:

Z weighted value seems comparable.

For fun I tried 20Hz:

103,9 dB (Z) of .... inaudible sound *shrugs*

My normal listening level peaks at around 90dB (Z), so for my purposes there is plenty of headroom left in the driver.

Now if s/o would be so kind and answer that darn telephone please!

Edit: now that my ears stopped ringing, I did the same test with my DT-880.
I got it up to 114dB (Z) during the music piece above but the bass was already distorting a bit.

With the Clear I get pristine sounding bass until: BLÄM! Xmax.
With the DT-880 there is no hard limit but I get ever increasing distortion and it just sounds bad.

The workable range of the two is roughly the same. Now I realize that a DT-880 is a lot cheaper than a Clear. Would love s/o do a similar measurement with a different can that is comparable to the Clear but doesn't have that limit.

 

[melowman]

For those combining the Clear with the RME DAC (pro or non-pro): which DAC filter do you prefer?
I find the two first SD filters (sharp and slow) not working for me; the phase linear Sharp filter sounds too aggressive to me; NOS ain't working for me, I have a "bizarre" sensation with it; the SD LD, I don't know if I like or not but definitely the one I like is the phase linear Slow: I lose a tiny bit of very top end but overall it's the filter I enjoy listening music on.

What about you fellow sound passionate?

 

[Kai P]

Got my second Focal Clear Professional today (the first had a annoying defect at the logo metal piece), ran the 3 "killer songs" with the Oratory1990 Harman EQ preset and couldn't get it to clip in what I would call very loud volume (about 12 o clock on the Topping L30 at medium gain with more than 2V input).

Trying some more with "Un espejo en el cielo" (from Tidal) I got them both to clip at about 3 o clock, so about 50% higher than my loudest listening volume. My normal listening volume during the day is about 9 o clock or less.

For me they sound incredible and have great dynamics/slam. If those dynamics are bought with a maximum volume "only" about 50% over my loudest listening volume, thats a huge plus for me compared to less dynamic headphones which can go much louder than what I already never use.

And from my research the last 2 weeks it seems to be pretty much the best headphone below 1000 euro (I paid 869 euro for the clear) and there isn't any that match it in detail, tonality and dynamics/slam? I don't get why focal gets negatively called out for their statement that it was a design decision if this exact design seems to work great for 99.9% of listening volumes and produces great sound.

 

[amirm]

I don't get why focal gets negatively called out for their statement that it was a design decision if this exact design seems to work great for 99.9% of listening volumes and produces great sound.

Mine does it at lower levels than what you are explaining. Alternatively, what you and I call loud may very well be different. Regardless, typically headphones have massive amount of headroom. So much that I can get my skull and ear lobes to resonate without them clipping. Yet the Clear does so even during normal testing I did. So it has a massive shortfall in this regard, not a small amount.

Remember that you have not tested the full extent all content that may hit on this. How annoying will it be if it hit it at lower levels on some other content in the future?

So my negative commentary on this is justified. I did not find the fidelity to be unique or better enough to make one put up with this risk. You of course get to make a decision otherwise. I am only here to find the limits of equipment and expose them because manufacturers don't.

 

[Rock Rabbit]

Well, since this is a forum that likes numbers and since I am a curious bugger that can't leave things alone, I did some experiment.

Senpai @amirm said that he was reluctant to torture the clear in order to find the values at which his loaned exemplar hit Xmax, and I can completely understand that. Being weary of damage myself, I thought about a way to make it happen anyway and this is the method I have come up with:

While listening, I slowly up the volume until the driver starts to exceed the designed travel and then I turned the volume back one notch (2% on the Windows 10 main volume). I measured that 10% corresponds to roughly 3dB.

I don't own a fancy headphone measurement rig, like Amir but I used the "UMIK through a CD-contraption" trick, @solderdude gave me a while back. So take these numbers with a hand barrow of NaCl. At least I think they should be usable ballpark figures.

No EQ of mine of any sort was applied to the actual music.

First test was the "Un espejo en el cielo" piece Amir linked earlier. The bass has it's peak at ~30Hz.
This is what I could get out of my Clear:
View attachment 103875
If I interpret the values correctly: 110dB (Z) weighted was the peak.

Next I used a 30Hz sine wave, created in Audacity:
View attachment 103876
Z weighted value seems comparable.

For fun I tried 20Hz:
View attachment 103877
103,9 dB (Z) of .... inaudible sound *shrugs*

My normal listening level peaks at around 90dB (Z), so for my purposes there is plenty of headroom left in the driver.

Now if s/o would be so kind and answer that darn telephone please!

Edit: now that my ears stopped ringing, I did the same test with my DT-880.
I got it up to 114dB (Z) during the music piece above but the bass was already distorting a bit.

With the Clear I get pristine sounding bass until: BLÄM! Xmax.
With the DT-880 there is no hard limit but I get ever increasing distortion and it just sounds bad.

The workable range of the two is roughly the same. Now I realize that a DT-880 is a lot cheaper than a Clear. Would love s/o do a similar measurement with a different can that is comparable to the Clear but doesn't have that limit.

To be "clear" C or Z weighted...in the picture seems C

 

[Kai P]

Mine does it at lower levels than what you are explaining. Alternatively, what you and I call loud may very well be different. Regardless, typically headphones have massive amount of headroom. So much that I can get my skull and ear lobes to resonate without them clipping. Yet the Clear does so even during normal testing I did. So it has a massive shortfall in this regard, not a small amount.

Remember that you have not tested the full extent all content that may hit on this. How annoying will it be if it hit it at lower levels on some other content in the future?

So my negative commentary on this is justified. I did not find the fidelity to be unique or better enough to make one put up with this risk. You of course get to make a decision otherwise. I am only here to find the limits of equipment and expose them because manufacturers don't.

Sorry that wasn't meant to criticise you or the review, should have made that clearer. Of course if it happens during normal listening for a specific person it's a deal breaker for that person. If that is a reviewer he should also call that out. What I don't understand is how many people here and on reddit seem to instantly dismiss the headphone because it "clips at normal listening volumes" or with any bass EQ applied. Both are not the case for me and for the 2 Focal Clear Pro I have, so I just want to add that as a different view on it. Also still not 100% sure if your Focal Clear maybe was worse than average. My 2 samples clip exactly at the same volume as far as I can tell.

As far as future content is concerned, I currently have 50% headroom above my highest listening volume with tracks selected for the problem. For me personally that should be enough, but you are right that others might think differently and should know about it.

 

[melowman]

I tested small magnitude corrections but soon gave up on them as they didn't seem to be worth the effort. Instead I went after low hanging fruit:

View attachment 100408

Basically we have some bass boost, some reduction of energy around 1.1 kHz center frequency and lowering of the peak at 11.3 kHz. The latter was important to get rid of the brightness.

The improvement was quite noticeable and pleasant. More bass helps balance the rest of the response. Detail resolution improved with the 1.1 kHz filter and as noted, the final 11.3 kHz filter took care of remaining brightness.

Didn't go through every single comment on the 28 pages: did anyone report that @amirm said he did an EQ cut at 11.3 kHz, but that he screenshot shows a boost. ?

 

[melowman]

Both are not the case for me and for the 2 Focal Clear Pro I have, so I just want to add that as a different view on it.

I'd like to also comment that no clipping ever occurred to me at normal listening volume, which is at around -21/-22 on the IEM port of the RME ADI-2 DAC FS, which would correspond to something like -46dBr. (-20 on IEM is plenty enough for me to enjoy music like if I was in heaven, louder ain't enjoyable to me.)

As was mentioned at the beginning of the thread, the only thing that was at first bothering me with the Clear, was that it's got some sort of "honkiness" -- probably the behavior around 1kHz that was mentioned -- and coming from the HD650 for so so long, I didn't like it first — or I should say, I did reject it first. But then switching back to the HD650 after a long period with the Clear, oh joy I fell in love again with these heaphones (like you fall in love again with the same person several years later) but I missed some of the edge that the 1kHz bump the Clear had. Then after some time with the HD650, switching back to the Clear was a great pleasure to listen to! I was just too accustomed to the Sennheiser signature for so long.

In the end I came to the honest conclusion that this bump was musical and pleasant and welcome.

Besides all this, the Clear had got qualities that the HD650 doesn't have; people have already commented on them, but the greatest for me is that transients are better reproduced. With the Clear, suddenly music is breathing, living, moving in a way that I couldn't hear before, and thanks to this we are given the opportunity to hear with more fidelity the intention of the different engineers and of the artist and the band that created that music. This is just awesome.!

 

[amirm]

Didn't go through every single comment on the 28 pages: did anyone report that @amirm said he did an EQ cut at 11.3 kHz, but that he screenshot shows a boost. ?

It was addressed in the ensuing 23 pages. So you don't have to go look for them, I noticed it the moment I post the review but thought I leave it as is to see who catches it. Audibility of those spikes is quite low.

 

[Rock Rabbit]

Didn't go through every single comment on the 28 pages: did anyone report that @amirm said he did an EQ cut at 11.3 kHz, but that he screenshot shows a boost. ?

See post #449...everybody knows, Amir knows but left a trap...page 23
Page 9 for the slomo of a Clear driver clipping

 

[JIW]

Well, since this is a forum that likes numbers and since I am a curious bugger that can't leave things alone, I did some experiment.

Senpai @amirm said that he was reluctant to torture the clear in order to find the values at which his loaned exemplar hit Xmax, and I can completely understand that. Being weary of damage myself, I thought about a way to make it happen anyway and this is the method I have come up with:

While listening, I slowly up the volume until the driver starts to exceed the designed travel and then I turned the volume back one notch (2% on the Windows 10 main volume). I measured that 10% corresponds to roughly 3dB.

I don't own a fancy headphone measurement rig, like Amir but I used the "UMIK through a CD-contraption" trick, @solderdude gave me a while back. So take these numbers with a hand barrow of NaCl. At least I think they should be usable ballpark figures.

No EQ of mine of any sort was applied to the actual music.

First test was the "Un espejo en el cielo" piece Amir linked earlier. The bass has it's peak at ~30Hz.
This is what I could get out of my Clear:
View attachment 103875
If I interpret the values correctly: 110dB (Z) weighted was the peak.

Next I used a 30Hz sine wave, created in Audacity:
View attachment 103876
Z weighted value seems comparable.

For fun I tried 20Hz:
View attachment 103877
103,9 dB (Z) of .... inaudible sound *shrugs*

My normal listening level peaks at around 90dB (Z), so for my purposes there is plenty of headroom left in the driver.

Now if s/o would be so kind and answer that darn telephone please!

Edit: now that my ears stopped ringing, I did the same test with my DT-880.
I got it up to 114dB (Z) during the music piece above but the bass was already distorting a bit.

With the Clear I get pristine sounding bass until: BLÄM! Xmax.
With the DT-880 there is no hard limit but I get ever increasing distortion and it just sounds bad.

The workable range of the two is roughly the same. Now I realize that a DT-880 is a lot cheaper than a Clear. Would love s/o do a similar measurement with a different can that is comparable to the Clear but doesn't have that limit.

Z-weighting is no weighting at all, i.e. no attenuation of any frequency range. At 20 Hz, the C-weighting attenuates by 6.2 dB, while it attenuates by 3.3 dB at 30 Hz.

According to Amir's measurements, 20 Hz is 3 dB below 425 Hz while 30 Hz is about 1 dB below. Thus, the corresponding voltage peaks would give 107 dB and 111 dB SPL peaks at 425 Hz and since 425 Hz is about 3 dB below 1 kHz, 110 dB and 114 dB SPL peaks at 1 kHz, respectively.

According to the manufacturer specification of 104 dB at 1 mW at 1 kHz, this would require voltage peaks of only 0.5 V (~-4 dBu) and 0.7746 V (0 dBu). Amirs levels produced 1.73 V (7 dBu) and 1.95 V (8 dBu) peaks so his level would have been about 10-11 dB and 7-8 dB higher, respectively. However, maybe Focal was a bit optimistic with its specification.

Do you have any way of measuring the voltages at which the driver reached its maximum excursion?

 

[LTig]

For those combining the Clear with the RME DAC (pro or non-pro): which DAC filter do you prefer?
I find the two first SD filters (sharp and slow) not working for me; the phase linear Sharp filter sounds too aggressive to me; NOS ain't working for me, I have a "bizarre" sensation with it; the SD LD, I don't know if I like or not but definitely the one I like is the phase linear Slow: I lose a tiny bit of very top end but overall it's the filter I enjoy listening music on.

What about you fellow sound passionate?

Blind test?

Regarding NOS: this is actually no filter so no wonder that it sounds bizarre. The only reason to use NOS is for output of a square wave (test signal) because the risetime is much shorter and there is no Gibbs-phenomenon.

 

[melowman]

I did AB tests, not ABX (I was alone to dial in the different filters).
Here's from the RME ADI-2 DAC FS manual, regarding the "NOS" filter:

The DAC includes another filter which is called Super Slow in its data sheet. The impulse re-
sponse looks perfect, but checking the output signal with an Oscilloscope reveals steps that are
more typical for so called Non-OverSampling (NOS) devices, so we renamed it NOS within the
DAC filter menu.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

To be "clear" C or Z weighted...in the picture seems C

General setting is C weighted yes but I am more interested in the LZpeak value (3rd small number) that represents the unweighted peak input.

Naturally the average SPL (large number) will be considerably lower, due to being C weighted and due to the musical piece only reaching the peak values for a fraction of a second at each drum hit.

Do you have any way of measuring the voltages at which the driver reached its maximum excursion?

Unfortunately I do not possess a precise enough voltmeter.
Also, since the Voltage needs to be measured in parallel to the running driver, I would have to either disassemble the Clear or McGuyver some measurement rig to access the electrical signal.

Keep in mind that my soundcard has a 35 Ohm Impedance, so it will elevate the bass response. I don't think you can easily combine Amir's measured frequency response and my measured peak value mathematically.

I measured the FR a while back: